I have always stuck 1400M^3 as minimum starship hull size, that being said,
i am invoking the Handwavium rule here, but in at least one scenario (and
possibly a jtas article) I justified the minimum size rule by claiming
anything less would not support a jump "bubble" of sufficient strength to
consistently prevent jump inclusions, that will damage a vessel and drive
crew insane. ( that last part is based on an actual cannon adventure, if
anyone considers T20 canon that is 8-)
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> Tar pit question indeed. I�ve always assumed that jump-bubbles cannot be
> spherical because the volume of n-space they contain is *not* dependant on
> the longest dimension of the ship inside the bubble. I have also always
> assumed that their shape cannot be tied to anything in the hull of the
> ship because a ship with extreme damage to its hull can still jump without
> issue (apart from, you know, the vacuum of n-space itself).
>
> The easiest solution, in my mind, was to assume that the extent and shape
> of the bubble was simply projected from the jump-engine into n-space
> through a gap in the hull which the jump engine enclosed (hence the need
> for surface area for jump engines, and why it�s always tied to one
> specific spot on the damage tables and not spread over all 20 hull
> locations).
>
> This addresses pretty much all the issues I know of (which, granted, is
> likely not *all* the issues), but does fail to explain why there would be
> a minimum hull size (which I�ve decided to ignore anyway).
>
> As far as jump nets go (which I just found out about today), perhaps they
> allow the �bubble� to be extended in odd, unpredictable shapes. For
> example, a vessel designed to tow another one through jump-space would not
> know ahead of time what the shape of the carried ship would be.
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In <>,
> daryl@... wrote:
> >>
> >> I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must maintain
> >> a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be
> >> restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on
> >> the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a
> >> 100 DT ship?
> >
> > It would depend on how the jump bubble is created/maintained. If it
> > requires the equivalent of a hull then you don't save anything. If it's a
> > field projection that can extend beyond the hull to make up the minimum
> > displacement instead then yes a smaller hull would be possible, but
> you're
> > sill going to have to use the minimum 100tons for fuel calculation as
> that
> > is your bubble size.
> >
> > CT did have "jump nets" that allowed ships to carry external payloads
> > through jump. There was no solid info afik to the cost, mass,
> > displacement, etc for the jump nets. You did have to have enough jump
> > drive and fuel to "carry" the extra displacement though. That was about
> > the extent of the rules.
> >
> > Likewise there was no real issue for carrying externally mounted craft
> > beyond their displacement and any mounting hardware. Either the jump
> drive
> > extended to include them, some function of the mounting permitted it
> (like
> > jump nets), or the craft hulls had the required jump grid or whatever
> > included in them at the basic cost of manufacture (meaning it was a
> > redundant feature for non-jump use*).
> >
> > * except that I figured the hull grid/field was a standard feature/part
> of
> > the required hull that included not just jump space protection but also
> > normal space radiation protection and debris shielding, wrapped up with
> > the artificial gravity and contra grav lifters (before such items were
> > broken out into defined components)
> >
> > Problem is this is one of those tar-pit questions that once you start
> into
> > it you're stuck inventing all kinds of increasingly stretched ideas to
> > explain your way out of the mess, only you just find yourself sinking
> > deeper as you struggle harder :-)
> >
> >
> > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla